Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bruno,

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 7:59 AM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Alia, Acee, WG
>
>
>
> *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 12, 2017 7:25 PM
> *To:* Alia Atlas; [e-mail]; OSPF List
> *Subject:* Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06
>
>
>
> Hi Alia,
>
>
>
> *From: *OSPF <[e-mail]> on behalf of Alia Atlas <
> [e-mail]>
>
> *Date: *Friday, August 11, 2017 at 10:42 PM
> *To: *"[e-mail]" <draft-ietf-ospf-
> [e-mail]>, OSPF WG List <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06
>
>
>
> As is customary, I have done another AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06.
> First, I'd like to thank the authors for their work and the improvement.
>
>
>
> I have one minor issue on the IANA section.
>
>
>
> For the current FCFS space, I think it would be better to have
> "Specification Required" so that there's a place to look to understand what
> sub-TLVs are included.
>
> If the WG is happy with FCFS, that is fine too.
>
>
>
> I don’t have a strong opinion here. The goal is to be stingy for the code
> points that overlap the corresponding IS-IS registry (with a single octet
> type) and more liberal here. However, we’ve never gone all the way to FCFS
> before and “Specification Required” would seem more in line with other IGP
> registries.
>
>
>
> [Bruno] Alia, I see your point that we need a stable specification to
> interop. On the other hand, in the IDR WG, there is a direction toward
> having code points easier to get, in order to allow quicker implementations
> and avoid squatting. I though the situation would be similar in OSPF, but
> may be not. “Specification Required” seem to me roughly as hard to get a
> code point from, than “Standard Action” with early allocation. Plus there
> is a need to find a designated expert.
>
>
>
> What about changing the size of the ranges? e.g.
>
> - the first half for STD action (1 – 31999)
>
> - second half for FCFS         (32000-65499)
>
>
>
> With 32k entries in each range, there seem to be “plenty” for everyone,
> even if the IETF gets creative with many tunnel encapsulations and many
> parameters for each.
>

The bar for Specification Required is much lower than Standard Action.  It
just looks for something to be written down.  A web-page, an
internet-draft, etc. all qualify.

I prefer to be able to have folks know how to implement using the
code-point, but there are tons available and having a FCFS range is useful.


Acee has tracked better what the case is for OSPF - and I'm happy to have
him make the call here.

Regards,
Alia



> Thanks,
>
> Regards,
>
> --Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm asking for an IETF Last Call and will put this on the telechat on Aug
> 31.
>
>
>
> Thanks – hope to clear some more of these “almost ready" documents prior
> to next IETF.
>
> Acee
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alia
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>